|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 <<A. Instruction regarding the coming of Jesus. 1. (1-2) Paul’s comfort to the troubled Thessalonians and their question. Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. a. Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him: Paul here addressed questions raised by his first letter, where he instructed the Thessalonians about the catching away of the church to be with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). i. The challenge in understanding this chapter comes from the fact that it is a supplement to what Paul has already taught the Thessalonians in words, and we don’t know exactly what Paul said to them. Yet the ideas are clear enough if carefully pieced together. b. Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him: Paul clearly wrote of the return of Jesus, but the wording here implies a difference between the coming and our gathering. This strongly suggests that there are essentially two comings of Jesus. One coming is for His church (as described clearly in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18), and the other coming is with His church, to judge a rebellious world. i. “They are two parts of one great event.” (Morris) ii. Hiebert shows how the grammar of the ancient Greek in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 shows this: “The government of the two nouns under one article makes it clear that one event, viewed under two complimentary aspects, is thought of.” iii. This is completely consistent with other passages of Scripture that indicate that there must be two aspects of Jesus’ second coming, and the aspects must be separated by some appreciable period of time. · Different world conditions are described (Matthew 24:37-42, Matthew 24:21, Revelation 6:15-16). · Different manners of Jesus’ return are described (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Revelation 19:11, 14-15, 21). · Different scenarios regarding the predictability of the date of Jesus’ return are established (Matthew 24:36, Daniel 12:11). c. We ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled: Apparently, a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching (or an incorrect application of it) had caused the Thessalonians to be shaken in mind and troubled. Here Paul used a strong wording, speaking of both a sudden jolt (shaken in mind) and a continuing state of upset (troubled). Their fears centered on the idea that the day of Christ had [already] come. i. “The word to be shaken, signifies to be agitated as a ship at sea in a storm, and strongly marks the confusion and distress which the Thessalonians had felt in their false apprehension of this coming of Christ.” (Clarke) ii. A preferred manuscript reading of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 has the day of the Lord rather than the day of Christ. The day of the Lord is a concept with a rich Old Testament background, and was mentioned in Paul’s previous letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5:2). It is not a single day, but a period associated with God’s outpouring of judgment and the deliverance of God’s people. A significant aspect of the day of the Lord is the Great Tribulation described in Matthew 24:1-31. d. As though the day of Christ had come: Some translations have that the day of Christ is at hand, such as the King James Version. But the translation in the New King James Version (and other modern translations) is preferred. The Thessalonians were not afraid that the day of Christ was coming, but that they were in it. i. “The verb does not really mean to be at hand, but rather to be present.” (Morris) The notable Greek commentator Dean Alford translates the passage, “To the effect that the day of the Lord is present; not, ‘is at hand’: the verb used here occurs six times in the New Testament, and always in the sense of being present; in two of those places, Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 3:22, the things present are distinguished expressly from the things to come.” ii. From this, it is obvious that the day of Christ had not been completed. Paul will go on to demonstrate that it also had not yet dawned, because the Thessalonians were afraid that they were in the Great Tribulation (the day of the Lord), and feared that they had missed the rapture. But Paul will demonstrate that they are not in the day of Christ; because if they were, then certain signs would be present. iii. It is important to notice that the Thessalonians would be shaken or troubled by the thought of being in the Great Tribulation only if they had been taught by Paul that they would escape that period through the rapture. Otherwise they would, in a sense, welcome the Great Tribulation as a necessary prelude to the Second Coming. But Paul had clearly taught them that they would escape God’s judgment on this earth during the period known as the day of the Lord or the day of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:14-18).>> enduringword.com |
||||||
|
Vic 19:18 1. Confounding the Persons. It seems you don't understand the theology behind the issue. To attribute to one Person a quality that is unique to another person or shared by the other two Persons (e.g., omnipresence) IS 'confounding the persons'. Your response merely repeats your position without justifying it. 2. "You were likewise lying when you claimed I denied Grace had always been at the core of God’s dealing with humans…" I never accused you of that. I said that DISPENSATIONALISM as a theology posits times when Grace was not the core. SUMMARY 1. My comment that you were 'confounding the persons' has not been shown to be untrue, much less a deliberate untruth. In itself it is a debatable point in theology. What makes it offensive is that you have not accused me of being mistaken, but of lying. Do you still maintain that I deliberately lied? 2. You have not shown where I said anything to support your allegation "You were likewise lying when you claimed I denied Grace had always been at the core of God’s dealing with humans…" I have tried to act in goodwill by clarifying that it was Dispensationalism that I was criticising, not you personally. Do you accept this clarification and retract your allegation? To quote a respected member of the club, "Why don’t you pay better attention to what people say?" |
||||||
|
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9) All three members of the Trinity are mentioned twice in this single verse… “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Romans 8:11) Equating Jesus with God and saying Jesus as God has the power of omnipresence – both of which is all I ever said – is not confounding the Persons. <<I never accused you of that. I said that DISPENSATIONALISM as a theology posits times when Grace was not the core.>> You attributed the dispensationalism to me. Here’s what you said… <<…and your Dispensationalism that denies that Grace has always been the core of God's dealing with humans>> My dispensationalism? I think both points at least support that you misrepresented me. Whether it was deliberate or not, I guess I can’t know for certain. But it’s happened often enough that I don’t think it’s by accident. Do what you will with this response. |
||||||
|
Vic 20:07 2. <My problem is not whether you are Dispensationalist or not; it is that you accused me of saying that you had "denied Grace was always at the core". You still have not produced anything I said that carries that direct personal implication. Seriously, Vic; why do you feel like you have to say "You're lying"? Why not just say "That's not correct" and clarify your position? <Whether it was deliberate or not, I guess I can’t know for certain. But it’s happened often enough that I don’t think it’s by accident.> What has happened repeatedly is you misconstruing a comment or statement into something quite different from the clear meaning in context. Whether it was deliberate or not, I guess I can’t know for certain. But it’s happened often enough that I don’t think it’s by accident. I will not take any more to-and-fro. Do you retract your allegations? |
||||||
|
I’d be willing to consider it solely to keep the peace if you didn’t have a long history of doing this with me and if I didn’t think you’d use any sort of a retraction in the weeks and months ahead (assuming I’m around that long) to claim I admitted I had falsely accused you of lying and retracted the allegation. But let’s see honest you are, Bob. Do you deny that you’ve said at least three times that I rely on either “spontaneous ideas” or my “gut instinct” to understand the Bible when I’ve repeatedly said I rely on guidance from God’s Holy Spirit? That question gets to the heart of why I think your misrepresentations of what I’ve said on the other two points are deliberate and therefore lies. So go ahead and throw me out. I certainly won’t miss the endless arguing. BTW, no thoughts on the commentary from 2 Thessalonians 2 that demonstrates your objections to what I said are baseless? No retraction for baselessly and repeatedly saying I contradict myself? Your ego is your biggest problem, Bob. It causes you to view any discussion as an opportunity to belittle someone by any means necessary and elevate yourself as intellectually and theologically superior. |
||||||
|
Vic 21:05 No, I don't deny that. But if you make a claim like that, you need to be able to demonstrate it. Anyone can claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, when they are really deluding themselves. I've come across a few people like that. So how do you establish your credentials? <BTW, no thoughts on the commentary from 2 Thessalonians 2 that demonstrates your objections to what I said are baseless?> It is a view that can be argued. We don't have enough information to be certain of the context. But in so far as it is helpful, it imports its own background assumptions; not to say those assumptions are accurate or inaccurate, but they form the paradigm in which the explanation operates. Just like assuming that animals can talk is accepted in Aesop's fables, or chemical valency is sometimes described to kids as atoms 'holding hands'. The assumptions don't have to be literally accurate if they are only illustrative. It certainly doesn't 'demonstrate' that my objections are baseless. (Why are you so fervent about everything being absolutely accurate or totally baseless?) <No retraction for baselessly and repeatedly saying I contradict myself?> But you do! Sometimes you directly contradict what you have said elsewhere, often you say something which is merely incompatible. In all the times I've made that point about self-contradiction, how often have you been able to resolve the apparent contradiction? I can't think of any such cases. The closest you have come is to claim 'exceptions to the rule', but without saying why they are exceptions other than because you decide that they are. Just one college course in Exegesis would enrich you so much! <Your ego is your biggest problem, Bob. It causes you to view any discussion as an opportunity to belittle someone by any means necessary and elevate yourself as intellectually and theologically superior.> Yes, I plead 'guilty' to the first sentence. But I'm not the one saying that the other party is not a 'real Christian', nor have I called you a liar. Nor do I say that MY way is the only way; only that it is a valid alternative in some circumstances. I'm arrogant, but I'm aware of my faults (or at least, the biggest ones!) and my limitations. <So go ahead and throw me out.> That was never my intention. I have had grounds for speaking more harshly to you for a long time now, but I can take a few insults. I've been insulted by experts! But when you started publicly calling a club member a liar, I felt I had to jerk on your lead. Please be more moderate in your tone. What you believe to be true is worth saying and explaining to others, but it is not grounds for assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Even at my most sarcastic, my sarcasm has been aimed at specific ideas, not specific club members. (I have only ever called one person a liar, and that was when he denied making a specific statement. I gave him that statement cut-and-pasted and the reference for the original and asked if he maintained that he had never said it. He persisted in his denial even after being confronted with his own words.) So please read carefully, speak carefully, and don't automatically assume the worst. Ask for clarification if you will; and by 'clarification' I don't mean a confrontational "ARE YOU SAYING THAT..." or "Do you deny that...". Just a 'What do you mean by..." is enough, with perhaps an example of where an incorrect understanding might lead. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
